Comparative analysis of experimental testing procedures for the elicitation of rescue actions in ants.

Filip Turza, Krzysztof Miler
Author Information
  1. Filip Turza: Institute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 7, Kraków 30-387, Poland. ORCID
  2. Krzysztof Miler: Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences, Sławkowska 17, Kraków 31-016, Poland. ORCID

Abstract

Rescue behavior is observed when 1 individual provides help to another individual in danger. Most reports of rescue behavior concern ants (Formicidae), in which workers rescue each other from various types of entrapment. Many of these entrapment situations can be simulated in the laboratory using an entrapment bioassay, in which ants confront a single endangered nest mate entrapped on a sandy arena by means of an artificial snare. Here, we compared numerous characteristics of rescue actions (contact between individuals, digging around the entrapped individual, pulling at its body parts, transport of the sand covering it, and biting the snare entrapping it) in ants. We performed entrapment tests in the field and in the laboratory, with the latter under varying conditions in terms of the number of ants potentially engaged in rescue actions and the arena substrate (marked or unmarked by ants' pheromones). Rescue actions were more probable and pronounced in the field than in the laboratory, regardless of the type of test. Moreover, different test types in the laboratory yielded inconsistent results and showed noteworthy variability depending on the tested characteristic of rescue. Our results illustrate the specifics of ant rescue actions elicited in the natural setting, which is especially important considering the scarcity of field data. Furthermore, our results underline the challenges related to the comparison of results from different types of entrapment tests reported in the available literature. Additionally, our study shows how animal behavior differs in differing experimental setups used to answer the same questions.

Keywords

References

  1. Science. 1965 Sep 17;149(3690):1392-3 [PMID: 17741924]
  2. Behav Processes. 2012 Oct;91(2):133-40 [PMID: 22766352]
  3. Sci Adv. 2017 Apr 12;3(4):e1602187 [PMID: 28439543]
  4. PLoS One. 2009 Aug 12;4(8):e6573 [PMID: 19672292]
  5. Science. 2011 Dec 9;334(6061):1427-30 [PMID: 22158823]
  6. Biol Lett. 2012 Dec 23;8(6):910-2 [PMID: 22859561]
  7. Am Nat. 2019 Sep;194(3):395-404 [PMID: 31553216]
  8. Horm Behav. 2009 Jun;56(1):1-10 [PMID: 19281813]
  9. Science. 1978 Nov 17;202(4369):770-2 [PMID: 17807252]
  10. Behav Processes. 2017 Nov;144:1-4 [PMID: 28843392]
  11. J Biol Rhythms. 2018 Jun;33(3):255-271 [PMID: 29589522]
  12. Front Psychol. 2020 Jul 29;11:1795 [PMID: 32849060]
  13. Am J Primatol. 2006 Oct;68(10):1012-6 [PMID: 16892414]
  14. Insectes Soc. 2017;64(2):303-305 [PMID: 28479609]
  15. Behav Processes. 2017 Jun;139:12-18 [PMID: 28215553]
  16. Science. 2005 Jul 1;309(5731):93 [PMID: 15994539]
  17. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Apr 22;267(1445):765-70 [PMID: 10819145]
  18. PLoS One. 2016 Mar 17;11(3):e0151925 [PMID: 26986741]
  19. Commun Integr Biol. 2010 Mar;3(2):77-9 [PMID: 20585494]
  20. Nat Commun. 2017 Jun 01;8:15414 [PMID: 28569746]
  21. Anim Cogn. 2014 May;17(3):609-18 [PMID: 24126919]
  22. J Exp Biol. 2020 Feb 28;223(Pt 5): [PMID: 32029458]
  23. J Insect Behav. 2017;30(6):632-644 [PMID: 29386747]
  24. Biol Lett. 2017 Feb;13(2): [PMID: 28148829]
  25. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48516 [PMID: 23144897]
  26. Anim Cogn. 2016 May;19(3):543-53 [PMID: 26846232]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0rescueantsentrapmentbehavioractionslaboratoryresultsindividualtypesfieldRescuebioassayentrappedarenasnareteststestdifferentanimalexperimentalobserved1provideshelpanotherdangerreportsconcernFormicidaeworkersvariousManysituationscansimulatedusingconfrontsingleendangerednestmatesandymeansartificialcomparednumerouscharacteristicscontactindividualsdiggingaroundpullingbodypartstransportsandcoveringbitingentrappingperformedlattervaryingconditionstermsnumberpotentiallyengagedsubstratemarkedunmarkedants'pheromonesprobablepronouncedregardlesstypeMoreoveryieldedinconsistentshowednoteworthyvariabilitydependingtestedcharacteristicillustratespecificsantelicitednaturalsettingespeciallyimportantconsideringscarcitydataFurthermoreunderlinechallengesrelatedcomparisonreportedavailableliteratureAdditionallystudyshowsdiffersdifferingsetupsusedanswerquestionsComparativeanalysistestingprocedureselicitationFormicacinerea

Similar Articles

Cited By